Thursday Humor: What Is The Optimal Temperature For Global GDP Growth?

Authorized by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

A group of climate alarmists have included that global GDP will be 23 percent lower on the current path.

And you have the cognition of the ridiculous article When it came out.

I stopped reading erstwhile I noted that all countries were all given equal weighting. For example, Nigeria has the same weight as the US.

The authors tried to mythate this in various ways but it was acquainted that the authors would be the data and the study to match their goals.

Today, I am pleased to present a complete and way traveling of the Nature article.

Please contact Global Non-Linear Effect of Temperature on economical Production: Comment on Burke, Hsiang, and Miguel by David Barker, emphasis mine.

Thejournal Nature published an influence article in 2015 by Marshall Burke, Solomon M. Hsiang, and Edward Miguel (hereafter BHM) purporting to show that higher temperatures will lower economical growth in warm countries.

The Web of discipline reports that the paper is in the top six 1 hundredths of 1 percent of economics and business publications by cities, and Google student shows 2,269 cities. BHM (2015) besides received crucial attention in the popular press. Hsiang further developed this work and back a chapter of the National Climate Assessment (Hsiang et al. 2023) claiming that higher temperatures would reduce the rate of economical growth.

BHM’s analysis is Shallow and missing. The authors usage data with characteristics that are known to make spurious regression results without making appropriate adjustments or even considering these characteristics. They estimation parameters of a quadratic curve reporting temperature to growth, and then cherrypick countries to include in a illustration that appears to confirm the form of this curve. The curve is then utilized to task growth rates into the distance future utilizing temperature scripts that a more fresh comment in Nature determined as either “extremly unlikely” or “unlikely”.

Description of BHM (2015)

BHM (2015) usage authoritative data presenting 166 countries from 1961 to 2010 on temperature and economical growth. All countries are equally weighed, and all country is signed a single average temperature for each year. Because any data are missing, there is simply a full of 6,584 country/year observations alternatively of the 8,300 that could be utilized if data from all years in all countries were available.

The header consequence of a 23 percent simplification in GDP comes from taking each country’s projected GDP per capita with and without climate change, then taking the weighted average by population, and then taking the percent difference between the weighed sum with and without climate change.

The header result, that warming will reduce global GDP per capita by 23 percent, is more than double the mean estimation of BHM's bootstrap estimation, which they do not report. BHM claim that their consequence is “globally representative”, but it does not hold without the Greenland and the regions of the Sahara and Central Africa, and it does not hold in large regions of the world. Simulations support the hypothesis that spatial autocorrelation may be the case of BHM’s results, and Robustness checks besides propose that their results may be spurious. BHM has been the subject of methodological criticism (Newell et al. 2021; Tol 2019; Rosen 2019), but my paper is the first to specify paper its deceptive practices.

Thesis Falls Apart

Barker notes that if you remove Greenland and regions of the Sahara and Central Africa from the analysis, the entry BHM these falls apart.

He besides comments on pride variables and notes that if the analysis started 1 year earlier, the BHM thesis besides falls apart.

On the geek side, Barker notes “Any date, no substance how noisy, will make a smooth quadratic curve if 1 variable is regressive on another and its square and the predetermined values of the dependent variable are plotted against possible values of the independent variable.”

Thus, the good smooth graphs of BHM are automatic by design.

Regarding the lead chart, Barker says “Five countries are cherry-picked to make the relation appear to be significant. While the figure is not a cruel part of BHM’s analysis, it is indicative of the missing approach of the paper, and suggests alternate methods of measuring the relation between growth and temperature.“

Much of his rebuttal is complex and not light reading. I picked any highlights that I thought would be mostly understandable.

Optimal Temperature

I am assured there is no specified a thing as an optimal global temperature. specified a belief preludes technology advances that can mitigate climate impacts.

At best, an optimal temperature is unknown and changing. And it’s ridiculous to believe we could or should effort to hit the optimal temperature even if it exists.

It’s clear BHM had an agenda and manipulated the dates, the countries, the years included, and the pride variations to produce the desired result.

Forcing the Data to Meet the Non-Science

BHMForced the data not to meet the science, but to meet a belief in non-science. I neglect to see what they gain by this.

At best, they now look like a pack of innovative scientists, and at worst a pack of complete liars.

Cheers From the Cult

The people BHM address are in the same culture and request no convincing. OK, BHM got cheers from the cult. If you were the goal, congrats.

But if the goal was to convince the sketch, they failed miserably.

Some of us Saw through the nonsense right from the beginning. And now we have a stellar rebuttal from David Barker to back us up.

March to Madness Continues

The lie of the day is from the EPA: Carbon capture will pay for itself (thanks to IRA subsidies). No, it won’t even with subsidies. anticipate blackouts and a higher price for electricity.

In case you missed it, delight see Biden’s fresh Carbon Capture Mandates Will origin Blackouts, Increases Prices

The march to energy madness continues.